Feyenoord Board Criticized for Failed Transfer Window and Power Struggles

On Monday’s edition of Kick-Off from De Telegraaf, the spotlight swung firmly onto Rotterdam. Not for a famous European night. For a transfer window that, according to two of the paper’s leading voices, Feyenoord’s hierarchy managed to squander.

Mike Verweij and Valentijn Driessen did not tiptoe around it. In their eyes, technical director Dévy Rigaux and general director Robert Eenhoorn misplayed a crucial summer.

“They had the money. And they blew the moment.”

Verweij started by pointing at Rigaux’s earlier criticism of his predecessor, Dennis te Kloese.

“Rigaux has taken a huge swipe at his predecessor Te Kloese,” Verweij said as the conversation turned to Feyenoord. “But now it turns out that Te Kloese, with the money for Hadj Moussa included, had 40 million.”

From there, he laid out the numbers that, in his view, expose how poorly Feyenoord handled the market.

“There was a bid of 25 million for Ueda, who was sold far too cheaply to Lille OSC. And Read could almost have risen to 35 million. And Hull City bid 20 million for Targhalline.”

Those figures form the heart of his argument: Feyenoord had options. Serious ones.

“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,” Verweij continued. He reminded viewers that it was Te Kloese who had assembled a squad “worth around €120 million.”

“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.”

The suggestion is blunt: Feyenoord didn’t just miss an opportunity. They walked away from it.

Friends of Feyenoord in the firing line

Driessen picked up the thread and immediately widened the frame. For him, this isn’t only about misjudged bids. It’s about power and ownership.

“It all comes back to the Friends of Feyenoord again,” he said. The supporters’ investment group holds 49 percent of the club’s shares, and that stake, Driessen argued, weighs heavily on every major decision.

He outlined the structure that, in his view, shapes Feyenoord’s transfer policy. “They have 49 per cent of the shares. And the moment Feyenoord pay €17.5 million, they lose 25 per cent. And in two years’ time, again.”

On top of that, Driessen pointed to an obligation that kicks in when the club does well on the market.

“Feyenoord are also obliged to buy part of the shares if they post a positive transfer balance in a transfer window. And they certainly would have done that if one of those transfers had gone through. Then that transfer balance would have been so high that they would have been obliged to buy part of the Friends’ purchases.”

His conclusion is clear: big sales don’t just mean money in the bank. They also mean the Friends of Feyenoord edging closer to the exit. And, according to Driessen, that is exactly what the group does not want.

The Hadj Moussa saga and a serious accusation

From there, the criticism sharpened and focused on one of the summer’s most striking near-deals: the failed move of Hadj Moussa to Al-Ittihad.

Driessen made a direct accusation.

“The Friends of Feyenoord do not want out. And 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. Eenhoorn allowed himself to be influenced into not letting the Hadj Moussa transfer go through,” he said of Feyenoord’s technical director.

The official explanation that surfaced around the collapsed transfer – a rejected bank guarantee – did not convince him.

“For Driessen, a rejected bank guarantee is not the reason Hadj Moussa is not now an Al-Ittihad player. It concerns a €40 million transfer. It concerns Saudi Arabia, just ask Ajax. They have always had the money and are solvent.”

He painted a picture of a deal that was allowed to wither rather than pushed over the line.

“Feyenoord were also hardly reachable by phone, it was very difficult to get in touch with them. It was dragged out for a very long time, and in the end the medical could no longer take place.”

The implication is heavy: procedural delays and unresponsiveness from Feyenoord’s side, not financial risk, killed a €40 million move.

“An extension of the Friends”

Driessen then went back to the man at the centre of his criticism.

“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 him, Eenhoorn’s stance on the ownership structure has long been clear.

“He has previously made it known that he is not exactly eager to buy out the Friends. And then you remain stuck with those Friends,” Driessen concluded.

In the space of one broadcast, Feyenoord’s summer strategy was recast not as a cautious financial plan, but as a missed chance driven by internal politics and a shareholder group reluctant to loosen its grip.

On the pitch, Arne Slot’s successor has to work with what’s left. Off it, the question now hangs over De Kuip: when the next big offer lands on the table, who will Feyenoord really be playing for?