He will provide a report card that shows just one win in 10 games in 2013 to add to four wins last year.
Neeld understands he is delivering a regulation report but the board is expected to deliver answers to despairing fans.
As the losses have mounted, those fans have wondered whether Neeld is the man to see Melbourne through an era of hopelessness into one of hope. It's something Neeld must also be asking himself, but is not the only issue the club needs to address.
Here are five key questions the Melbourne board must consider.
1) Have Neeld's changes been good for the club?
When Neeld was appointed, there was an understanding shared by him and those who appointed him that the short-term outlook would be grim.
The Demons had a poor playing culture. They lacked leadership, having blundered under Dean Bailey by summarily dismissing ex-skipper James McDonald. They had stuffed up their drafting for a generation and needed to invest in youth, hoping the current group had been chosen wisely.
The outlook continues to be poor, and it speaks volumes that Neeld considered Sunday's 95-point loss to Hawthorn "encouraging". That assessment was based on a third-quarter victory – just the seventh quarter "win" for Melbourne this season – and a high desire indicator count.
Neeld was given a mandate to change - in particular to assess the playing group and make tough decisions with the club's long-term welfare in mind.
Out went Brent Moloney, Jared Rivers, Ricky Petterd and Cale Morton, among others. In came two premiership players - Chris Dawes (from Collingwood) and Shannon Byrnes (from Geelong) - plus Cameron Pederson (North), and David Rodan (Port Adelaide).
The recycled players were brought for reasons other than just football ability: leadership, experience, training standards, personality, character.
Signing Pedersen to a three-year contract was the one mistake made so far by those in charge of rebuilding the list. But he has time to prove some worth, and was one of the few shining lights in Sunday's thrashing, working hard in a back half constantly under assault.
Dawes, after a slow start, showed the reasons he was targeted with an excellent game against Hawthorn, with 21 disposals and 12 marks.
2) Is the Demons' recruiting in good hands?
A club's present and future is based on managing its list - removing those who cannot, or will not, buy in to the coach's philosophy, and choosing those most likely to make a big impact, rapidly.
Some of that is great judgment, some of that is luck.
Neeld inherited neither judgement nor luck.
The club changed the list management team, and this is their first crop: Jesse Hogan, Jack Viney, Jimmy Toumpas, Matt Jones, Dean Terlich and Dean Kent.
Judge for yourself whether they made the right choices.
All bar the highly rated Toumpas have shown their ability in glimpses. Kent, who turned 19 in February, showed more than glimpses against the Hawks.
3) Does the board share Neeld's belief that the club's long-term goals are on track?
After Sunday's loss, Neeld pointed out that the Demons had recruited mini-draft pick Hogan with the long term in mind.
Toumpas had been chosen at pick No.4 despite the club knowing he would need time to recover from two hip operations.
"We've got a really clear vision of where we're going, we've got a really clear pathway that we're following, and we haven't hidden that from anybody. We believe we're assembling a really good list that will take us forward," Neeld said.
The Demons are rebuilding one painful layer at a time.
In the 75+ games category at the club are James Frawley, Mitch Clark, Colin Garland, Chris Dawes and Nathan Jones.
Between 40 and 75 games are Jeremy Howe, Jack Trengove and Jack Grimes.
The babies are Hogan, Toumpas, Viney, Kent and Terlich.
Melbourne wasted so many draft picks that it is dealing with a reality not of Neeld's making: it has been an awful club for a generation.
4) Is Neeld the man for the job?
A board is no different to a coach in the sense that it needs a game-plan and the right people in place to implement it.
Choosing those people is one of the board's most critical roles.
Neeld came with good references, with a glowing report from Mick Malthouse after the pair had worked together for four years, including a premiership year.
There is a big difference however, between being one of the leadership team, and being the leader.
Melbourne appointed Neil Craig to assist in this vital area.
Perhaps the board could use the weighted criteria Geelong used to appoint Chris Scott in 2011 to assess Mark Neeld's performance now and the potential for him to succeed in the future:
- 25 per cent: leadership and cultural development (of the team, the football department and the club)
- 15 per cent: personal qualities
- 15 per cent: management ability
- 20 per cent: technical ability
- 10 per cent: coaching history
- 10 per cent: ability to communicate
- 5 per cent: commercial appeal (such as brand focus and ability to relate to members)
The board needs to determine whether Neeld (or anyone else in a senior position in the football department) can measure up against those criteria.
If the board has doubts, then it has another question to consider: is an injection of new blood enough to deliver what Demon supporters need to see? And if the board believes Neeld and Neil Craig fall short, who is capable of righting the ship, and is this saviour available?
5) Can the club weather the fallout if Neeld is retained?
The off-field sniping won't stop if the Demons keep faith in Neeld on Monday afternoon, so who around the club has demonstrated the ability to convincingly sell the club's message?
Perhaps Peter Jackson, who comes to the club with a great record at Essendon, can provide the backing Neeld would require.
Certainly a decision delivered with strength would change the recent history of the club.
At the moment, public confidence in Neeld is low, but in this respect he has been hard done by.
First-time coaches who have not been superstar players are only given time to build the confidence of external observers if their team is winning, or at least clearly on the right path.
Consider Alastair Clarkson, Chris Scott, Brad Scott or Ross Lyon as coaches who worked their way through a period when question marks hovered above their head.
Of those, only Chris Scott has enjoyed an extended honeymoon.
Neeld has never had a honeymoon.
Before he coached his first game, he and the playing group had to cope with the loss of club president, Jim Stynes, before enduring the tanking furore, which finally reached its conclusion in January.
At times, Neeld has not helped himself, with emotional press conferences in which he has defended what many fans believe to be indefensible.
For Neeld, the best outcome would be for the board to emulate Gold Coast's approach with Guy McKenna a year ago. The Suns made change around the coach, expressing confidence in the coach's ability to deliver on their objectives.
In this scenario the Demon board would need to demonstrate confidence in the club's direction, and an understanding of what the Dees could expect in terms of sponsorship, membership and crowds.
Right now, this uncertainty is what is causing the sands to shift under Neeld.
The club is at a turning point. Only the right decision will do.
