Told us what? That the only man that can achieve success with Spurs is Harry Redknapp? That all future managers are doomed to failure?
Don't buy it now and I won't buy it EVEN if the next man in is a flop. This was not and is not the point.
That getting rid of Harry would not improve our position - that is all. If the next manager is a flop I think that those who questioned the logic of sacking someone who got us 4th, 5th, 4th would be vindicated. Very limited and simple criteria that I'm going on here.
You seem to be taking a position that is impossible to ever be proven wrong. In philosophy and/of science this sort of statement is called "pseudo science" and is the sort of thing that astrologers, homeopaths, prophets and mediums do - they will never make a statement whereby their theories can be tested to work or not work. It does not get great results.
In real science (and in good debating/arguing) you make a theory, test it, see if it works. You build a plane out of cheese, test it, see it doesn't work. Make one out of metal, test it, see that it works.
I am taking the position that the next manager of Spurs will find it very hard to do as well as the previous three seasons. If he does not get results like 4th, 5th, 4th then my theory will almost definitely be proven right. If he DOES get these results then my theory could well be wrong.
Now I bet you'll say "But even if Harry had stayed we might not have got those sorts of positions". True. Sometimes you have to play the odds. And the best indication of something happening in the future is that it has happened in the past. Since "Spurs finish 4th, 5th, 4th under Harry" has happened in the past that is great evidence for the possibility of it happening in the future. "Spurs improving on recent positions due to [insert name here] becoming manager" has nothing like that weight of evidence. And in the case of some of the names bandied about practically no evidence at all.