He won't tell lies, he won't waste money, he's the most hated chief executive Sheffield United has ever had, and you – that's you, Rangers fans – aren't always going to like what he's got to say.
If his introductory press conference at Murray Park actually became a pretty effective charm offensive yesterday (he produced some dry and amusing one-liners) it couldn't disguise the fact that the devil was in the detail.
Is he an asset stripper? Or a hatchet man? Doubtless this 58-year-old, who had resigned himself to a life of contented semi-retirement (he made mention of breeding racehorses as a hobby), wouldn't recognise either of those descriptions. How he'll be seen by supporters is another matter. The Rangers takeover saga has been a madhouse, but all the divergent parties have been united by one agreed view of the future: budgets would have to be redrawn, and cuts made, if the club is to be turned around. But no-one likes an axe-man.
Supporters don't take kindly to downsizing and it takes a certain type of executive to come in and not give a damn about treading on people's toes. If the Green consortium does convince HMRC and Ticketus to accept a pence-in-the-pound Company Voluntary Arrangement (isn't it only a week since we were saying all this about Bill Miller?) then he'll soon be re-educating Rangers like a heartless headmaster.
What's regarded as shrewd husbandry by a 20-strong consortium drawn from Britain, Singapore, Indonesia and China will look very much like penny-pinching lack of ambition to fans on Paisley Road West.
"There hasn't been a season ticket increase for three years, so I'm going to be popular when I raise the price," he said.
That was a matter he had raised in discussions with Graeme Souness the other day. He hinted that Souness was supportive of the consortium, without hinting at his actual involvement. "I was talking through these issues and trying to get some guidance and Graeme said: 'I'm the right man to talk to about tough decisions at the club . . . I signed a Catholic'."
How do you please a consortium of 20? As the old maxim goes, a camel is a horse designed by a committee. If Green was right when he said no individual would own more than 15% of the club then there is the potential for all sorts of obstacles and disagreements when it comes to decision-making and strategy. Unless the 20 are united by one guiding principle, of course: do whatever it takes to get a financial return, and don't worry too much about what it means to the team.
Sir David Murray is now seen as a pretty disastrous example of how to run a club but, regardless of the morals and recklessness of plunging into massive debt, his basic motivation for doing so was to indulge and react to his managers' needs. Are these investors from Indonesia, China, Singapore and everywhere else going to give a damn about releasing funds for, say, the January window signing McCoist might see as crucial to his team?
There was a curious moment yesterday when Green essentially said that if someone walked into the room with a £1m cheque and was willing to hand it over then they, too, would be embraced into the consortium. Is it to just grow indefinitely? Will they eventually fill the Copland Road end?
It was odd enough that there was as many as 20 in the first place.
Presuming he went to his wealthiest contacts at the outset, did the first two or three not commit enough between them to raise the required level of funding for a takeover?
How much were they each pledging if he had to keep knocking on doors after reaching five, 10, 15 of them?
With all due respect to Green, the inevitable stuff about growing the Rangers brand in the developing Asian markets was a bore; people have been coming out with that old line for years.
Rangers are crying out for transparency after the shocking mismanagement of Murray's latter years and the disgrace of Craig Whyte's ruinous nine months, yet, as things stand, they have a secretive group seemingly intent on running the club by remote-control. There was no information on who they are, how much money they have, how much they'll invest, or why they're doing it.
Green's concept of a plc board and a separate football board made perfect sense – the latter including "people who understand this football club much better than I do" – but to whom do they ultimately report: to all 20 consortium members or one who will be elected to act on behalf of them all?
Much, much more will have to be revealed if this group is to earn the supporters' trust.
For now, Green's unsmiling face is the only one the consortium has. He would endorse the stereotype of a Yorkshireman as hard-working and thrifty. Hard work? He walked into Duff & Phelps' office at 10am on Friday and it was 21 hours and 20 minutes, right through the night and into Saturday morning, before he emerged with his unconditional offer accepted by the administrators.
Thrift? "The whole concept of my life has been about money and making sure things run properly. Rangers in my custodianship will never have the problems it's had in the past. We will have governance and compliance within the company. I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting this is about developing a financial model."
He didn't quite come across like a guy eyeing the fixtures and fittings to work out what they might fetch on ebay, but one thing was obvious: Charles Green would keel over at the idea of spending a tenner just because Celtic spent a fiver.