Analogy between 2 kinds of "meanings" -

1) Meaning of Words -

Suppose you are given this sentence - The book is on the table. You understand "what it MEANS". It means that there is a book resting on a table. Simple. 

2) Meaning of Reality-data - 

Suppose you see someone doing repetitions of a 100 kg dumbbell bar at the speed/frequency of squatting flies. You would immediately say - "this MEANS that the dumbells are fake (say, hollow)".

Now, in both the cases you used the word 'MEANS'. You used the concept of 'meaning'. 

Let's draw analogies. In place of words composed of letters and arranged in a certain order, in the first type, you have some real entities arranged in a certain way (configuration), in the second type. In both the cases you applied a set of knowledge-rules - in the first case, the rules of language, and in the second case, the commonsense (or otherwise) rules of the world. And in both the cases you drew an inference from these which was the 'MEANING'. This gives us a general definition of meaning - The inference drawn by applying thought to a given configuration of data, using certain knowledge-rules. 

But this means that meaning is nothing but an inference. Note that the meaning of 'X' is what X STANDS FOR and not what X IMPLIES (which is a further step via thinking more, on X). What X 'stands for' is also an 'implication' of X and hence meaning is a subset of implication. In a sense, MEANING IS THE "COMMONSENSE" OF IMPLICATION, since it is the first, immediate thing implied by any configuration of data. 

This leads to a point - Coming back to a previous part of this write-up, if the knowledge-rules of the world, applied in the second type were uncommonsensical, the inference would still have been the 'meaning', as long as the thinking involved in the drawing of the inference from them,applied on the given data, was not "more" or a "complex", or in other words, was obvious. 

Now, this previous sentence raises a question - what if there is a sentence, understanding whose "meaning" is tough. In that case, would you call the 'meaning' of that sentence, (inferred from the rules of language), as an 'implication' (because it's tough and not commonsense)? No, we would still call it the 'meaning' of the sentence, because the meaning of X is what X stands for, and the understood tough meaning of the given sentence would still be what the sentence (given in words) stands for (in reality). Implication always comes AFTER 'standing for', however difficult the drawing of the inference of the 'standing-for"' is.