It certainly sounds wrong to me when referring to a team. If I heard ‘Chelsea are crap’ I would assume it was a reasoned judgement about the football team, if I heard ‘Chelsea is crap’ I would assume it was an absurd generalisation about an area of west London 
I have to write and correct copy for publications where the house-style is US English and this is one of my stumbling blocks.
Completely off-topic, but since this thread will have attracted a swarm of grammarians, I thought this might be interesting. Intentional, do you think?
The group are never going to agree on how to handle collective nouns and proper names for a single collection composed of multiple components. Throw in Latin and the data are even less clear.
When England ruled the world, they got to decide. But now that we have more money, the US gets to decide: they is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Obviously aimed at armchair warriors. I guess wearing such a slogan could be classed as “affecting” to make a difference… 
The red highlight and italics made me wonder if it might be done that way on purpose and that the misuse of the word affect is the thing (or an example of something) requiring change
In American English, if the noun takes a plural form, then the verb takes a plural form. If the noun takes a singular form, then the verb takes a singular form.
Thus –
The Beatles are …
Coldplay is …
Los Angeles is playing well …
The Dodgers are playing well …
The family is happy …
The Joneses are happy …
The government is taking a strong stand …
Justice Department officials are taking a strong stand …
That is because using the singular does not do full justice to the weight of crapness in this particular example.
This seems absolutely correct to me, but it does introduce a quandary: would you pluralise the band ‘10,000 Maniacs’ even though the plural is entirely incorrect?
British group gramm-ARE!
I’m not sure I understand the question.
It seems to me that, grammatically speaking, “10,000 Maniacs” is exactly equivalent to “the Beatles.” Granted, there aren’t really 10,000 of them in the recording studio or up on stage, but it’s still a plural noun.
Thus –
The Beatles play music.
10,000 Maniacs play music.
I don’t see a quandary here, unless you’re suggesting that “10,000 Maniacs” is an alias adopted by a single individual rather than a group. In that case, I agree there’s a difficulty.
In (at least my) American English, I would say “10,000 Maniacs is…” or “Nine Inch Nails is…”, but also “The Beatles were…”. So it’s not entirely cut and dry. Perhaps because it seems, with 10,000 Maniacs or Nine Inch Nails, it’s clear we’re not actually talking about a myriad of maniacs or a bunch of nails, while with The Beatles, there is the sense that we’re talking about four people who happen to each be a Beatle.
A band usually implies more than one. Mind you, I’m not saying every time. Some of those Scandanavian bands aren’t even up to one full member yet. (That’s the rumor, anyway.)
Woe am I.
In Canada (and probably in England) one is “in hospital” and “at university”, while in the US, one is “in the hospital” and “at college”. There is no logic behind these differences, they just are facts to be observed.
Yes, but you still say “a band,” right? “A” is singular and you use it because grammatically “band” is singular.
It is a band.
They are members of a band.
The grammar looks not to the implication but to the actual form of the noun used.
This is the problem you get with The Streets, which is just one bloke (but nevertheless manages to make records just as appalling as groups composed of three or four people).
They are a band.
Hmmm. That doesn’t sound at all wrong to my ears (neither does ‘it is a band’ though)