THERE was a time when no-one gave a damn about who did the number-crunching and all the other drab, businessy stuff behind the scenes at football clubs.

Back then, the "suits" were unseen and unheard. People cared about the players and the manager, and the only other figure who registered with them – sometimes – was the chairman.

Now football's growing enslavement by money has given profile and prominence to those who were once anonymous, as demonstrated by the frenzied reaction to Charles Green's departure as chief executive of Rangers. The story was front page news for The Herald and other papers as well as the lead item on the television and radio bulletins. The Daily Record put together an eight-page supplement on it. After his year of incessant grandstanding there was no shortage of material to fill the pages. Green's departure was like a zip being drawn over a giant mouth.

He is not a toxic figure for the Rangers support as Craig Whyte is – not yet, anyway – but doubtless he will now become a similar figure to the previous owner in terms of being periodically outspoken, and doubtless outlandish, in his comments and observations about Rangers. The crucial difference from now on is that he will be speaking about the club rather than for it, and that means Rangers have the opportunity to start redrawing their image and position in Scottish football.

Green has not been reflecting the views of chairman Malcolm Murray, non-executive director Walter Smith, or manager Ally McCoist when he's been spouting off in recent weeks and in some cases his behaviour and positions have been the polar opposite of theirs.

Green's departure is enormously significant for Rangers because – even if there is fresh uncertainty around the club – it can at least start to speak in far more sober, measured tones. Murray seems to be the only man in football who is bound by a gagging order while he's still in a job, such is his seemingly pathological avoidance of the media. If the chairman is going to play dumb then someone else will have to do all the talking and that's going to mean the next chief executive.

There is no way they can be as colourful, expressive, provocative, and eventually vacuous as Green was, but whoever takes over is going to be the voice of the Rangers board.

Too little is known about Craig Mather to know what he would bring to the role if appointed, but the apparent desire by some of the Rangers directors to rush him into the job without advertising the position is ill-advised.

After Craig Whyte and Green, the club is in desperate need for a figure of calm substance, someone who can commit to the role for three or four years at the very least and grow into a major, credible figure in Scottish football rather than trying to come across as another chest-beating populist. Green spoke so relentlessly that he cheapened his own words and he cheapened Rangers.

Mather seems to have been a personable and pleasant guy when he's been around the club this season and it needn't necessarily be a hanging offence that he was brought to Rangers by Green. The notion of him being "tainted by association" could eventually peter out so long as his hands are clean, although it doesn't square with McCoist's belief that the club has to be "cleansed". It wasn't difficult to infer that McCoist's idea of cleansing might extend to closing the door on anyone who could be seen as one of Green's cronies.

Even if Mather is squeaky clean in that respect it doesn't automatically follow that he is qualified or appropriate to take on a job as big as chief executive at Rangers. He became the club's director of sports development last July and his primary objective was to review what goes on at Murray Park.

Since then, nine months on, nothing has been heard from him. There have been no public comments about what he likes or dislikes about the club's training complex or its youth development system, no declaration of his vision of its future. Inaction would be a greater concern than silence: Murray Park is as badly under-resourced now as it was on the day he became involved.

Supporters will wonder if the objective of his review was to see if Murray Park could continue to operate on the cheap (or even endure more cuts) or to establish exactly where it needed more investment. Green's view of what Murray Park needed wasn't likely to be the same as McCoist's.

Someone has to run Rangers, and quickly, and perhaps Mather could do so on an interim basis with someone else taking over permanently in a few months. But Rangers is a full-time job and Mather has a successful packaging company, a sports management company, and a horse-racing business. His work is based in Nottingham. Is he able to give up all of that?

Neither Whyte nor Green had previously enjoyed the sort of platform Rangers afforded them and their egos were consumed by the enormous fuss and attention they generated. That did Rangers no good. This beleaguered club, jumpy about the prospect of Whyte drip-feeding more damaging accusations into the public domain, needs a figure it can trust.

If that's to be Mather they have to hear from him. It will help if he sounds more like a bank manager than a circus ringmaster.