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

Document:
Following NAME_1's interview on Wednesday, in which he said he was not ready to sign a new contract at Liverpool, NAME_2 of Live4Liverpool gives the view from Merseyside. While I hate to use social media as a gauge of opinions, NAME_1's interview didn't go down well at all. It was ill-timed and, regardless of what NAME_3 and his agent hoped, he didn't come across very well. Some of his answers only fuelled the fire really. I'm hoping that that wasn't the whole point, as we've seen these sorts of situations engineered by agents before. The interview has almost certainly changed the way the fans feel about him. There will be a lot of fans that are of the opinion: 'let him go'. Obviously, with the caveat that we get our money's worth! NAME_1 returns to Liverpool training after the international break and shakes hands with

Summary:
1. NAME_1 said he was not ready to sign a new contract at Liverpool.
2. The England winger has been linked with a move to Arsenal.
3. Liverpool fans have a mantra that no player is bigger than the club.

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.
