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

Document:
NAME_1, 46, expressed an interest in the role at a meeting with Forest owner NAME_2 NAME_3 on Tuesday. But after "time to reflect" on the meeting and feedback from fans, he has now "withdrawn from any involvement". He had said: "I'm not convinced change will happen quickly or thoroughly enough under NAME_4's ownership." But following his decision to withdraw his interest, he explained: "As for fans which questioned my motive, I want the club to be in safe hands, competitive and in the top division. "My current business, career and health are way more important to me than pushing against a tide of doubt, spite and rabble rousing, so I'll stick to the odd Q&A in NAME_5 now and again to say hello to those who supported me back in the day." NAME_1 was involved in a protest against Al NAME_3 on 21 January, which followed the collapse of

Summary:
1. NAME_5 Forest director of football NAME_6 has pulled out of the running to become the club's new chief executive.

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.
 Do not include the following keywords: interest, football, forest, change
user