Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all entity names in the summary are presented the same way as in the document.

Document: Chairman NAME_1 plans to sell the club to ex-Oxford United chairman NAME_2. But Mr NAME_3 warned it is too early to know if he can resolve "the very complicated situation of outstanding debt" to enable the purchase. The club owes Northampton Borough Council more than PS10m. Mr NAME_3 said: "We have found a very complicated situation with outstanding debt, parcels of land with different leases, various creditors and winding-up petitions. "At this stage it is still too early to know whether we will be able to properly resolve these issues to allow a sensible deal to proceed." Northampton Town chief executive NAME_4 had previously said the sale would only go through if Mr NAME_3 was able to do a deal with the council over a PS10.25m loan. The loan was to have been used to redevelop the club's Sixfields ground, including the building of the new East

Summary: 1. Manager NAME_5 said he wouldn't relish the prospect of working with Mr NAME_3 once again.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to entity names?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Avoid using the following keywords: land, northampton, ps10, east
user