I suppose it could be worse...

[cricketfieldclarets]

Today we face a resurgant Man Utd.

But nine years ago today...

[cricketfieldclarets]

For some reason the Mail Story says 2011 but was definitely 2010.

[CoolClaret]

Was 9 years, one of the worst performances that I've seen by a Burnley side, although Scunthorpe were set up well that day and played well.

I remember their striker Forte causing us issues

[cricketfieldclarets]

Was 9 years, one of the worst performances that I've seen by a Burnley side, although Scunthorpe were set up well that day and played well.

I remember their striker Forte causing us issues

Correct 9 years.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Was 9 years, one of the worst performances that I've seen by a Burnley side, although Scunthorpe were set up well that day and played well.

I remember their striker Forte causing us issues

I remember being dissapointed. As we were playing OK at home just poor away. Having said that we had just won at Barnsley for first time in 895 years and were in with a play off shout.

Thankfuly though the board saw sense. Brought in Howe and the rest is history.

[nil_desperandum]

Proof - if any was needed, that you should never take any "fact" printed in The Mail to be true without checking.
Definitely 2010.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

At the time of Laws sacking we couldn't win back to back games, were really struggling away from home and were just about to go on a run of games where something like 4 out of the next 6 were away from home

[thatdberight]

Definitely 2010. The Daily Mail says so.

Screenshot_20191228-120421.jpg (556.21 KiB) Viewed 1661 times

[Silkyskills1]

Coyle left start of 2010 and Laws lasted just less than 12 months.

[Longside4evr]

Scunthorpe were always a tuffnut for us to crack. Anyone remember the FA Cup encounter where it took us 4 games to get through.
It went on with three replays
A coin had to be tossed for where the forth time of asking who hosted the game
I bet it's there for a record book notification

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Our League record against Scunthorpe at the Turf is poor with only 3 victories in 11 matches and our away league record is worse with only 2 victories in 11 matches.
To think that, today, our fans will be moaning on because we can't play as well as Manchester United!

[ClaretAndJew]

I actually thought that game ended 3-0 to Scunthorpe. You could sense the anger that day. Was very odd.

[tarkys_ears]

Having a crack at a dailymail timestamp is quite pathetic.

If you don't like it, keep your boring, recycled crap to yourself

[Vegas Claret]

fortunately there was only one game that counted against Scunthorpe

[ClaretTony]

Our League record against Scunthorpe at the Turf is poor with only 3 victories in 11 matches and our away league record is worse with only 2 victories in 11 matches.
To think that, today, our fans will be moaning on because we can't play as well as Manchester United!

And Laws brought Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Sheffield Wednesday to Burnley and I don't think he ever left without at least a point.

[Murger]

Christ what a god awful match.

[elwaclaret]

I was just as underwhelmed as anyone when Brian Laws got the job, but the way he is hung out to dry on here is pathetic.

He took the job because it was the one he’d wanted for years... he knew the soul of the club had been torn out, but he came anyway. People point out they expected to go straight back up.... evidence suggests we were just as likely bomb straight through into Division one, like so many others have....

Brian Laws stabilised the club and allowed the club to take a breath, before moving forward again. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the job he did here. He bought some bad signings, but also brought in one or two that proved fantastic signings, that people chose not to remember.

[nil_desperandum]

Having a crack at a dailymail timestamp is quite pathetic.

I don't think it is actually. I'm a bit at a loss as to how the Daily Mail article, (apparently from the official source) could have the year a full year out, but in any area of life having the correct date on a printed document is generally considered to be pretty important.
It's easy to get a date wrong, but if it appears at the top of a letter head, document or publication then one is generally entitled to consider it to be correct.
(It certainly misled the OP - who didn't - apparently - spot the error.)

[thatdberight]

... in any area of life having the correct date on a printed document is generally considered to be pretty important...

So is doing a bit of verification and not just taking something at face value because it backs up your own biases. My Firefox and Chrome, both on Android mobile, show the right date. So I can't be sure if;
1) The mistake was there for 8 years but got fixed in the 25 minutes after this thread started (unlikely)
2) There's an error at the Daily Mail that causes their timestamp to be shown incorrectly on some browsers/OS
3) There's a problem within a browser the OP was using
4) There's a problem in the OP's device or OS

I'd want to be sure before I pronounced.

[tarkys_ears]

Either way, it's pretty irrational

[nil_desperandum]

So is doing a bit of verification and not just taking something at face value because it backs up your own biases.

Not sure where the bias bit comes in, but you're correct about having to verify everything nowadays rather than take things at face value.
The 2011 date didn't ring true so - along with others - I checked it out. Problem is nowadays that so many people don't fact check, and that's why we get so much dubious info passed off as the absolute truth.
In this instance, it's not particularly important, but - as you suggested, it is rather baffling if different browsers can show different dates / info in the same link.
Anyway, enjoy the match. setting off now. Let's hope that the game's not ruined by VAR