EX-footballer Kieron Brady yesterday had his hopes of a #2.4m damages pay-out from his old club, Sunderland FC, dashed by three judges.

Glasgow-born Mr Brady, whose career was ended by an extremely rare vascular disorder, had accused the club's former manager, Mr Malcolm Crosby, and former physiotherapist, Mr Steve Smelt, of negligence.

The former soccer star said the officials had ignored his complaints about pain in his right leg and negligently delayed referring him for specialist treatment.

Appeal Court judge, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, ruled there was no basis for overturning a High Court judge's decision in April that neither Mr Crosby, nor Mr Smelt, were in any way to blame for the tragic end to Brady's career.

The 27-year-old is also claiming #2m damages from two Sunderland hospital doctors. That hearing has been adjourned until March.

Mr Brady claims he could have had seven more years in the professional game had consultant vascular surgeon, Mr Leslie Boobis, and consultant radiologist, Mr Simon England, given him appropriate treatment in January 1993. Both doctors deny negligence in the case.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith told the Appeal Court that Mr Brady's career had been ended by ''popliteal artery entrapment syndrome'' - a congenital condition so rare that a vascular surgeon might expect to encounter it only once in a lifetime.

After joining Sunderland as a 17-year-old apprentice, Mr Brady had represented Ireland at junior and under-21 international level and was at one point selected for the senior team, although he was unable to play through injury.

He played his last game for Sunderland's reserve team against Nottingham Forest on November 30, 1992, but was substituted at half time after complaining of cold feet, the court heard.

Cold feet are a symptom of the rare problem suffered by Mr Brady which is a ''one in a million condition''.

It was only afterwards that he was referred for specialist

treatment.

Mr Brady claimed that, had he been properly treated by experts three months earlier, he could have been successfully cured and his career would have been saved.

Despite several bouts of surgery since, the damage was permanent and he was put out of the professional game for good.

Mr Brady accused Mr Crosby and Mr Smelt, who has since left Sunderland FC in ''acrimonious'' circumstances, of ignoring his complaints over the preceding months, wrongly putting his symptoms down to an ''attitude problem''.

In April, despite finding Mr Brady an honest witness, High Court judge Mr Justice Buckley cleared both team officials of negligence.

Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, sitting in London with Lords Justices' Thorpe and Mummery, said it was only on very rare occasions that the Appeal Court overturned a trial judge's primary findings of fact.

He dismissed claims that Mr Justice Buckley had wrongly rejected expert medical evidence given on Mr Brady's behalf which had been ''highly critical'' of Mr Smelt.

Miss Mary O'Rourke, for Mr Brady, claimed the judge had given insufficient weight to interviews given to local newspapers by Mr Crosby and Mr Smelt after Mr Brady's career was ended.

She claimed that what the men had told the press was inconsistent with their evidence to the court and amounted to admissions on behalf of the club.

However, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith upheld Mr Justice Buckley's view that ''it would be bold to take as gospel'' the quotations attributed to the club officials in the newspaper reports.

The press interviews were just one factor to put in the balance when assessing the evidence, he added.

The appeal judges unanimously agreed Mr Brady's appeal be dismissed. He had been receiving legal aid for the appeal.

Sunderland FC's counsel, Mr Colin McKay QC, told the judges: ''It is still possible Mr Brady might win his case against the doctors. His claim is on the face of it for #2m.''

The former winger's address was given in court as Dalreoch Avenue, Ballieston, Glasgow.

However, a woman who answered the door at this address yesterday said Mr Brady no longer lived there, and refused to comment on the case.