As I said above, usage such as “England is beating Ukraine” (when referring to the football team) sounds horribly grating, but I gather that US usage is to use the singular for teams. But does that also apply to teams with plural names?
E.g. the Washington Redskins:
UK: “Washington are playing well.” US: “Washington is playing well.”
UK: “The Redskins are playing well.” US: ?
No, interpolating “to” doesn’t “fix” it, it changes the meaning.
If I agree the conditions for sale of my house, I am participating in drawing up those conditions in a way that is agreeable to me and the other party.
If I agree to the conditions for sale of my house, I am merely assenting to a set of conditions which have been presented to me without any input from me other than my eventual consent.
These are quite different actions. In the first “to agree [noun]” I am an active participant. In the second “to agree to [noun]” I am in a passive take-it-or-leave-it situation.
Since you tell me that the first usage doesn’t exist in US English, I don’t know how you express this distinction.
Unless I have multiple personality disorder, the former would usually be expressed as:
The buyer and I agreed on the conditions for sale of my house.
or
An agreement was reached concerning the conditions for sale of my house.
or
I agreed with the buyer on the conditions for sale of my house.
Going back to the OP, a US newspaper would be more likely to say
Iceland Striker Bjorn Sigurdson and Wolves strike signing deal.
US: The Redskins are playing well.
But check this out. Some team names aren’t countable nouns. The Utah Jazz and Miami Heat come to mind. We’d say “Miami is the NBA champion as of last night” but “The Heat are the champions as of last night.” True fact, btw.
It sounds like you just invented that distinction after the fact. In America, you’d say you were negotiating the conditions or determining the conditions, or some other verb. If you wanted to say that you consent to there being conditions at all, you’d say “I agree that there will be conditions” or “I agree to conditions” (no ‘the’). If you say “the conditions,” it implies that there exists a specific, definite set of variables already understood and agreed upon.
No, I am explaining the distinction that is in common use and perfectly well understood in my variety of English.
However I clearly didn’t explain it very well, as neither version means “to consent to there being conditions at all”.
I understand the distinction you are trying to make (I hope).
In US English, when parties conclude a successful negotiation we say “they agreed on something.” When one party acquiesces to the terms offered by another we “the party agreed to something.” But we would never say “the party agreed something.” But I just can’t hear “one party agreed on something.”
Examples:
John and Mary agreed on a new format for their show.
John agreed to the new format that Mary demanded.
Is there a rule that determines what is considered plural, or is it up to the individual to decide? For instance, would both people be correct in this conversation:
“Is Chelsea winning?”
“Yes, Chelsea are winning.”
Yes, that’s clear. In my variety of English it’s also correct to say “John and Mary agreed a new format for their show”. This matches (approximately) your first example but not your second.
The fact that this usage sounds strange to US ears is something I’ve only learned from this thread.
Well, usage obviously shows that the great majority of British English speakers use the plural for sports teams, and would never say “is Chelsea winning?”
The other example I gave before, “Chelsea is a Premier League football club”, sounds OK to me because it seems to be talking about Chelsea the faceless corporate entity rather than Chelsea the bunch of identifiable players running around a football pitch. But you could say “Chelsea are a football club” too. I wouldn’t, but some would.
I agree, the distinction is usually between the club as a company and the club as a team of players. For example, news reports generally said “Rangers has gone into administration” when talking about the clubs financial problems, but when talking about the team, it’s always plural. I don’t think British people really give it much thought, it’s just what “feels right” in the circumstances.
Over here, we follow the rule that the verb must agree with the subject, even if the subject is a collective noun in singular form: “New York is playing” (or “The Yankees are playing”), as well as “The bowl of strawberries is on the table” and “The strawberries are on the table”. That’s why it’s a bit jarring to hear a supposedly sophisticated BBC announcer say “Chelsea are playing…”.
Thanks to this thread, I had a minor epiphany a little while ago. Now I understand the puzzling slogan “Arsenal Rule” that I used to see on TV. I always took “rule” to be a noun, as in “the rule of Arsenal”, since we’d say “rules” for the verb over here.
See what confusion you Brits are causing? 
I assume, then, that you would say that the United States are going to war? 
Touché. 
It’s not like that phrase never comes up, either.
Not, really. That’s going the opposite direction. We do have no problem with nouns that look plural being singular. We just have a problem with treating a collective noun as plural.
No, it wouldn’t. Not in American English, anyway. “Agree to” covers both usages, and the word “yet” means that some agreement will be made, thus indicating he’s already agreed to accept a salary.
But we wouldn’t say “The Yankees is moving their head office” when we’re talking about the singular organization. “The United States is…” looks like an exception to me.
It would also be “The Redskins are playing well.”
Horribly.