You make a good point and maybe we don't need a new CEO and we...

You make a good point and maybe we don't need a new CEO and we can take the cost savings while Zeiss launch the product and secure FDA approval.
However if we are now without a CEO, Cheif Scientist and no longer have a senior Sales GM and we have a new Chairman who is now also being paid as an Executive Chairman with no experience of any type in Medical, Biotech, Science or Sales and Marketing then we should be questioning making savings as being the best strategy.
If our Executive Chairman was from a Medical Device, Biotech or had a strong product marketing background I can understand this logic.
This could end up being death by a thousand cuts.
Looking back is always easy, however we are applauding the new board for projected savings of $1m per annum in costs while we have lost circa $(30m) in OIL market cap value since this strategy was deployed by the new board.
That is a loss of $1m per week of shareholder value since January this year.
Let us all hope that Zeiss buy OIL quickly and save all of us from the well trodden path of death by a bean counting Executive Chairman or CEO with no experience in the field of business, industry or science.
I am trying to imagine how this story would stack up in an IPO where investors invariably back the Chairman, CEO, Executive and board who have in depth knowledge of the business and industry before they hand over funds.
Maybe we have the exception and our experienced CFO/Executive Chairman will lead us out of the wilderness with his ability to make P&L savings.
I think that most of us simple shareholders would prefer the return of the $30m loss in Market Cap and some liquidity in our investment than a promise of $1m saving over a year.
Hopefully I am wrong, however history would suggest that where we are right now on the OIL curve we can't save our way to success.