But this is exactly the point!
Hull fans in the main say positive things about him, Preston fans in the main say very negative things about him.
Hence my comment saying he once did well and now his star's on the wane.
Some people on here describe him as a miracle worker and very good manager and my answer to that continually is:
1. If he's this miracle worker and really good manager why has he been sacked from the 3 managerial positions he has held?
2. Why was he such a failure at Preston, a team in this same division as us?
3. If he's such a good manager why hasn't he been snapped up by someone else? And why has he been out of work since last November? Been plenty of vacancies elsewhere.
Surely he'd be in high demand wouldn't he?
4. His win ratio (let's forget about Hull at the moment, cos people keep telling me it was unfair as it was in the Premier against much better opposition) in his last tenure was 29%. That is going to get us nowhere at all.
When the vacancy here came up hardly anyone even mentioned Phil Brown and hardly anyone recommended him.
There was a 'who should be next City manager' poll on here two weeks ago. 283 people voted. Just 5 people voted for Phil Brown.
Only 5 people voted for this miracle worker?
Two weeks ago no-one mentioned him and now all of a sudden the guy is a 'miracle worker?' How stupid were we all not to select him!
Read some of the comments of the Preston board and they think he is a clueless clown.
People can point to Brown taking Hull up to the Premier. Peter Reid took Sunderland up to the Premier twice. Does that make him a good manager? He might have been some time ago. Star now very much on the wane and has been for quite a while. Which is exactly my point. You can't just point to something that happened 3 years ago and hold it out like some sort of beacon.
Iain Dowie took Palace up to the Premier. Good manager? One season of success, downhill since.
Just don't see how anyone can just look at Phil Brown's taking Hull up to the Premiership in isolation without looking at the whole picture.
Success followed by failure and no more success after that initial success.
Only 5 out of 283. That tells you everything.
If he had had success, then failure then success again then I would have an entirely different view of him.