Feyenoord Transfer Blunders: Criticism of Leadership
The knives are out in Rotterdam, and they’re being sharpened in Amsterdam.
On the latest edition of De Telegraaf’s Kick-Off, journalists Mike Verweij and Valentijn Driessen tore into Feyenoord’s leadership, accusing technical director Dévy Rigaux and general director Robert Eenhoorn of bungling a transfer window that, in their view, should have transformed the club’s financial power.
“They had the money. They didn’t use it.”
Verweij did not bother to circle his target.
“Rigaux has taken a huge swipe at his predecessor Te Kloese,” he began, before laying out the figures that, to him, tell the real story. With the money for Hadj Moussa included, he claimed, Te Kloese had effectively left Feyenoord with €40 million in potential transfer income on the table.
He then rattled through the missed opportunities.
- There was a €25 million bid for Ayase Ueda, who ended up going to Lille OSC “far too cheaply,” according to Verweij. Read, he said, “could almost have risen to €35 million.”
- Hull City had put €20 million on the table for Targhalline.
Add those together and the picture, in Verweij’s eyes, is damning.
“If they had simply done their job and sold the right players, Feyenoord would for the time being have had a great deal of financial resources,” he argued. Te Kloese, he reminded listeners, had previously assembled “a squad there that was worth around €120 million.”
His conclusion was blunt: “So I think Rigaux and Eenhoorn did something wrong in this transfer window. If they had sold Read immediately, they could have been much more effective in the transfer market.”
For Verweij, this was not about hindsight. It was about hesitation, and the cost of it.
The shadow of the Friends of Feyenoord
Driessen picked up the thread and dragged the discussion away from the pitch and straight into the boardroom.
“It all comes back to the Friends of Feyenoord again,” he said. The investment group owns 49 percent of the club’s shares, and in Driessen’s telling, that stake dictates more than most supporters might realise.
He outlined the mechanics: once Feyenoord pay €17.5 million, the Friends’ share drops by 25 percent. Two years later, the process repeats. On top of that, Feyenoord are obliged to buy back part of those shares if they post a positive transfer balance in a window.
And that, he stressed, is the crucial point. With one of those big transfers completed, the balance would have been so high that the club would have been forced to buy out a chunk of the Friends’ holding.
“They certainly would have done that if one of those transfers had gone through,” Driessen said. “Then that transfer balance would have been so high that they would have been obliged to buy part of the Friends’ purchases.”
In his view, the numbers on the transfer sheet are tied directly to the numbers on the share register.
Eenhoorn under fire
From there, Driessen’s criticism sharpened into a serious accusation.
“The Friends of Feyenoord do not want out,” he stated. And in his eyes, that is where Robert Eenhoorn comes in.
“Eenhoorn came in at the request of the Friends. He is their favourite, and became director. So he is not going to go against those Friends.” The implication was clear: Feyenoord’s top executive is not just working with the Friends of Feyenoord, he is working for them.
According to Driessen, that influence ran straight through the club’s handling of the Hadj Moussa saga. He claimed Eenhoorn “allowed himself to be influenced into not letting the Hadj Moussa transfer go through.”
The official line has pointed at a rejected bank guarantee as the reason the move to Al-Ittihad collapsed. Driessen dismissed that explanation.
“It concerns a €40 million transfer. It concerns Saudi Arabia, just ask Ajax. They have always had the money and are solvent.”
His message: this was not about whether Al-Ittihad could pay. It was about whether Feyenoord really wanted to sell.
Phones off, deal off
Driessen then painted a picture of a club that, at a crucial moment, simply stopped engaging.
“Feyenoord were also hardly reachable by phone, it was very difficult to get in touch with them,” he said of the Moussa negotiations. “It was dragged out for a very long time, and in the end the medical could no longer take place.”
A €40 million deal, he suggested, died not because of financial risk, but because of delay and silence.
He returned once more to the role of the Friends of Feyenoord and their man in the corridors of power.
“Robert Eenhoorn is simply an extension of the Friends of Feyenoord. He is their mate. The moment someone puts you forward and you can serve their interests, that happens nine times out of 10.”
According to Driessen, Eenhoorn has already made it clear he is “not exactly eager to buy out the Friends.” That reluctance, in his eyes, locks the club into a structure where sporting and financial logic can collide with shareholder interests.
“And then you remain stuck with those Friends,” he concluded.
On the pitch, Feyenoord will be judged by results and performances in the coming months. Off it, after accusations like these, the real scrutiny may now fall on who truly calls the shots when the next bid lands on the table.
