With that out of the way, let's attend to the main business, which is the legacy that Peter Stothard, who departs as editor after almost ten years, leaves his successor Robert Thomson. Let's start with Rupert Murdoch's valedictory salute to Stothard: "As editor since 1992, Peter led The Times through its greatest period of growth for a century."
Hmm. Well, up to a point, Lord Copper. While it is certainly true that, under Stothard, sales of The Times have grown from 377,000 to 710,000, this was largely achieved by a revolutionary price-cutting campaign. Those so minded could conclude that these extra sales have been "bought". On the other hand, The Times has at least hung on to many of its new readers, which is not something that many newspaper promotion campaigns can boast. At the time, I thought the price cutting wouldn't last or work, and I was wrong.
However, if winning readers was one aim of price cutting, what else did it aim to do? Answer: wound The Guardian; mortally wound The Independent; and knock The Daily Telegraph below the crucial one million mark, making The Times the market leader. Stothard leaves with the job half done - where the paper has been for the past few years. Sure, the competitors were hurt - some more than others - but The Independent is still hanging on and The Daily Telegraph is grimly clinging to one million-plus. It is as if the Allies, for all their efforts on D-Day, didn't get past Normandy.
So if Thomson is to start moving The Times forward again, what must he do? The answer is as simple and as difficult as this: find a purpose.
When it cut its price, The Times went populist. In so doing it gave up its position as the paper of the establishment. But what has it filled that void with and what exactly is it for today? With all great papers, whether you like their stance or not, you know exactly where they're coming from. I don't get that with The Times. It's a bit schizoid. It clings in a nostalgic but half-hearted fashion to its establishment status. It has not been convincing in embracing modern Britain and modern culture. In the nitty-gritty of editorial - supplements, sections and so on - it is more imitator than originator, which surely betrays its inner doubts about its role.
Whether the arrival of the new editor will be accompanied by a second price-led offensive we can only wait and see but, either way, the paper needs to find a mission and make it plain to all.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .