I regularly read the forums and message boards about my team, Hull City, to the annoyance of my long suffering wife. I get great pleasure out of chatting with fellow fans about the goings on at my club especially during matches as I no longer get the joy of watching live at the KC Stadium.
I now live in the States and the drive can get a bit wet.
However, I have been hearing more and more grumbling and whinging about our manager and whether he is up to the job of keeping us in the Premiership, or if we should keep him in charge at all if we have the misfortune of getting relegated at the end of the season.
I am firmly in the category of the often maligned "Happy Clapper brigade" who sees the glass as half full over the glass half empty "Doom Mongers" of the Tiger-nation.
I can see no reason why we should get rid of our manager for next season. We all knew without a doubt that this first season was going to be one of the toughest in Hull City's history.
We performed well above our abilities for a good portion of the season's start. I think that great start made a few actually believe this was going to be easy and that the Premier League was all hype over substance. Unfortunately, we have just ended up doing exactly what we all should have expected at the end.
We are not a small market but with no established Premiership experience we would always find it tough to attract quality talent on a tight budget.
We have also had some bad luck this season. Fagan getting assaulted by Guthrie against Newcastle United when he was playing some of the best football of his career. Record signing Jimmy Bullard's recurrence of his injury after only 37 minutes of his first game for the club. Marlon King's shenanigans, which are too numerous to mention.
Add to these unfortunate events and some of the poorest refereeing ever to ultimately reduce our points tally. Just think of Everton at Goodison Park or the penalty that never was against Aston Villa, along with many more.
If we go down none of those things can really be blamed on the manager, who has done remarkably well with the meagre resources at hand and even though he had seemed erratic at times he has never been dull.
He has been interesting and entertaining along the way. Yeah, there were cries for his head after the Eastlands debacle but lets face it, the players were appalling against Manchester City and deserved to get more than just an ear bashing for their efforts.
Or telling the press that he thought Geovanni should fail a drugs test in a lame and ill-advised stab at dark humour after Geovanni's remonstrations at been substituted in a game he was playing very poorly in.
There was the infamous Fabregas spitting allegation. Brown could have tackled the incident quietly and discreetly instead of in the glare of the camera, but would it have been as much fun?
Ultimately, I feel he has done a very good job under a lot of pressure. Many so called bigger managers would have crumbled and succumbed to the pressures of the media and of the task of guiding a club through the Premiership.
Would Sir Alex Ferguson, arguably the best club manager of his generation, have done any better with the players and resources available to Phil Brown? This is a manager who refused to talk to the BBC and has the resources of the wealthiest club in world football.
Could the "Special One" have conjured any more points out of the games played? Or, Kevin Keegan who famously had a melt down in a television interview as the pressure of the Premiership go to him.
The answer is "No", they don't handle the pressure better so why should Phil Brown have done a better job in his first season. He and Hull City have had a remarkable first season in the Premier League.