You have absolutely no idea how FFP works, do you?
Owner's wealth is irrelevant. That is precisely one of the reasons FFP was introduced in the first place.
It's simplest baseline is that revenue (not the same thing as capital) has to be in a healthy enough position vis-a-vis expenditures such as wages and transfers.
The idea was to stop billionaires simply pumping loads of money into a club and calling it 'revenue', instead creating a system where financial strength is earned via commercial and sporting growth and therefore in theory success is earned too.
Forest also have a mega wealthy owner, it is totally irrelevant to the fact that their global fan base is miniscule for a PL side and therefore their revenue is nowhere near where it needs to be, hence the points deduction and selling off key players.
The only ways around FFP are
1) For the owner to fabricate shell companies which assume the role of a 'sponsor', which is what City have done and continue to get away with.
2) To spread expenses over a ridiculous period of time, which is what Chelsea were doing but that loophole may now have been closed.
3) Gamble, which is what all of Leicester, Villa, Everton and Forest have done. When it works it's great but when it doesn't it is a disaster.
4) Increase revenue streams through a diverse portfolio and build a stronger global commercial presence. And as much as this might hurt you to hear, the team doing #4 better than anyone in the world at the moment is Spurs.
