Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
MLS side NAME_1 City are the latest club to have expressed interest in Manchester United misfit NAME_2. The Mexico international would be a huge commercial draw for the Florida-based franchise who are coached by former NAME_3 and Manchester City striker NAME_4. NAME_1 have a huge Latin-American fanbase and made enquiries last week about the prospect of a deal. NAME_2 is linked with a move to NAME_1 City after enduring a tough time on loan at Real Madrid . NAME_1 have a big Latin-American fanbase and NAME_5 is the captain of the MLS side . NAME_6 would be a popular arrival with NAME_1 supporters but eight European sides are also interested . NAME_6 has cut a frustrated figure during his loan spell at Real Madrid this season but still has plenty of interest from other Premier League and European sides. Southampton, NAME_7, NAME_8 and NAME_3 are all

Summary:
1. NAME_1 City have made enquiries about a move for NAME_2 .
2. The Mexico international has been on loan at Real Madrid this season .
3. NAME_1 have a huge Latin-American fanbase and are coached by former NAME_3 and Manchester City striker NAME_4 .
4. NAME_6 has cut a frustrated figure during his loan spell at Real Madrid .
5. Southampton, NAME_7, NAME_8 and NAME_3 are all interested .
6. Wolfsburg, AC Milan, NAME_9 and Inter Milan are also keen on the 26-year-old .
7. Manchester United have made a revised contract offer to NAME_10 .

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 The letter e should appear at least 3 times.
user