Sorry, sir, but on this one you are wrong.
I understand that someone close to Marshall is telling you that it was all about the "ruined the kid's moment" issue, but that doesn't make it true. I completely comprehend why those close to Marshall will not admit it was the money, and want to turn all of the attention to a "more legal" reason for changing his mind.
And for the record, Cribby is not the only person who knows what happened, so trying to diminish him because he lives in Gainesville is just misguided.
The more relevant analysis is whether Cribby's information (and the info from others) was accurate and reliable at the time it was happening (and even "before it happened, at least officially"). And in that regard, Cribby is 100%.
I do not disrespect your information, I merely take note that it is after-the-fact hearsay from a source who does not want to admit to the payoff. By the way, I am not against hearsay, I aced Evidence in law school, and I know all of the pros and cons of hearsay.
Marshall was paid (or at least offered payment, who knows how much of the money has actually been delivered to date). Marshall can blow up his "Manny ruined my moment within an hour of when it was supposed to happen" and ignore the fact that he himself was tweeting the night before.
To quote the great Mark Felt ("Deep Throat")..."follow the money".